2009 Budget deficit to be largest ever

[busara]

My comment was not pertaining to what Bush and the Congress during Bush's terms have done w/respect to spending. As far as I am concerned, Bush is not a conservative and I do not support many of his spending policies. And I certainly do not support the ridiculous socialistic housing bill that was just approved by the legislative branch and finally signed by the President. A bill that was supported by all of the democrats in the House except three (227 in favor, 3 against), while at least the majority of republicans had some fiscal sense as 149 rejected the bill (45 in favor, 149 against). The total tally was 272-152 in favor. Meanwhile in the Senate ... not a single democrat opposed the measure while 43 were in favor. Thirteen republicans had the fiscal sense to oppose the bill while 27 approved the measure. The total tally was 72-13 in favor.

My original comment was pertaining to the lie (which I recently saw on this board) that Clinton presided over a budget surplus during his terms in his office. He did not preside over a single budget surplus when in office.

Brian

i wouldnt call it socialistic. i would call it stupid

 

[sealybobo]

My comment was not pertaining to what Bush and the Congress during Bush's terms have done w/respect to spending. As far as I am concerned, Bush is not a conservative and I do not support many of his spending policies. And I certainly do not support the ridiculous socialistic housing bill that was just approved by the legislative branch and finally signed by the President. A bill that was supported by all of the democrats in the House except three (227 in favor, 3 against), while at least the majority of republicans had some fiscal sense as 149 rejected the bill (45 in favor, 149 against). The total tally was 272-152 in favor. Meanwhile in the Senate ... not a single democrat opposed the measure while 43 were in favor. Thirteen republicans had the fiscal sense to oppose the bill while 27 approved the measure. The total tally was 72-13 in favor.

My original comment was pertaining to the lie (which I recently saw on this board) that Clinton presided over a budget surplus during his terms in his office. He did not preside over a single budget surplus when in office.

Brian

So now that it's the democrats passing bills, they have fiscal sense?

This bill is to bail out middle class people who got fucked by your fiscally responsible Republicans. And then the Federal Reserve bailed out the banks, with YOUR MONEY. God I can't believe I have to explain things over and over.

You do remember the GOP broke a pork record in 2005 and then broke their own record in 2006? How were they voting back then?

Ah fuck it. I'm not going to change your mind. I just assume that you all remember what the fuck happened over the past 7 years and then I have to explain it to you like you are a fucking kindergardener. And then it doesn't even matter because I know you don't even care. You only care when one side does it. At least this bill is for middle class people who got fucked.

2005: Some of these earmarks are more audacious than others. For example, last year there was a "bridge to nowhere," a $223 million project connecting Alaska's Gravina Island — population 50 — to the mainland. That project drew so much ridicule from the media that an irate public successfully demanded that the bridge be shelved.

'Pork Barrel' Spending Hit Record High in 2005, Watchdog Says
FOXNews.com - 'Pork Barrel' Spending Hit Record High in 2005, Watchdog Says - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Then they broke their own record in 2006 because the FUCKING knew they were going to lose power. Might as well empty the treasury before you go. Bush is doing it too. Suckers. Stupid people!!!

 

[sealybobo]

No... you did not.... you posted selective information that ignores much of reality

but nice try

did you see today exxons profit was oner 40 billoin? before bush got in office it was 8. if that isn't enough for ya....

fyi. if we give them off shore and anwar, they won't sell it to us cheap. they'll sell it on the world market.

america is done. how do you treat creditors when you want money?? you wear a suit and you kiss their ass. we used to be the world creditor. now how do you treat debtors that owe you? we are the largest debtor now.

america the best country? we are in the end times for that. and you sat by and defended it until it was too late.

 

[Charles_Main]

did you see today exxons profit was oner 40 billoin? before bush got in office it was 8. if that isn't enough for ya....

fyi. if we give them off shore and anwar, they won't sell it to us cheap. they'll sell it on the world market.

america is done. how do you treat creditors when you want money?? you wear a suit and you kiss their ass. we used to be the world creditor. now how do you treat debtors that owe you? we are the largest debtor now.

america the best country? we are in the end times for that. and you sat by and defended it until it was too late.

Far left Drivel. Defeatest and baseless, and frankly it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[DiamondDave]

did you see today exxons profit was oner 40 billoin? before bush got in office it was 8. if that isn't enough for ya....

fyi. if we give them off shore and anwar, they won't sell it to us cheap. they'll sell it on the world market.

america is done. how do you treat creditors when you want money?? you wear a suit and you kiss their ass. we used to be the world creditor. now how do you treat debtors that owe you? we are the largest debtor now.

america the best country? we are in the end times for that. and you sat by and defended it until it was too late.

Move out then, lefty

 

[DiamondDave]

government actions and inactions HAVE CAUSED the health care system to become out of reach for the average family in the usa....it is not the working hard, paying taxes, joe's fault.....

to ignore the moves our gvt has taken, has done to make healthcare unaffordable on our own as individuals is being blind to reality though and will not help us solve the problem of unaffordable individual health care!!!!

care

It is not government's job... you are a citizen of freedom... with freedom comes the right to succeed and the right to fail... there are positives and negatives to freedom...

Ones like you cannot accept the personal responsibility for yourself... pitiful, truly

 

[DiamondDave]

lies, lies, lies......

First of all a single payer system is not socialism. The doctors still own their practices etc.....

Secondly taking care of the sick is the right thing to do, and the experience of all the other Western countries shows that a single payer system is the best way to do it.

Taking care of yourself is the right thing to do

People giving VOLUNTARILY to help out those in need is an honorable thing to do

Your personal responsibility for yourself is not my responsibility.. you providing for your well being is nobody's responsibility but your own...

this is not a bee hive... this is real life as a human being in a state based off of the freedom of each and every one of us....

grow up and accept responsibility

 

[gonegolfin]

sealybobo,

First of all, if you are going to respond to one of my posts, do so with some tact and respect. And filter the language. It has no place here.

So now that it's the democrats passing bills, they have fiscal sense?

No ... they had no fiscal sense on this last bill (along with some Republicans, the Treasury Secretary, and our President that supported it). But make no mistake, this bill does not get passed without the overwhelming democratic support.

This bill is to bail out middle class people who got fucked by your fiscally responsible Republicans. And then the Federal Reserve bailed out the banks, with YOUR MONEY. God I can't believe I have to explain things over and over.

You obviously have no idea who the primary beneficiaries of this bill are. You are a newbie. Check out my previous posts on this topic ... along with posts concerning the Federal Reserve, monetary policy, and the reasons for the recent rise in the price of oil. If you pay attention, you may learn something.

You do remember the GOP broke a pork record in 2005 and then broke their own record in 2006? How were they voting back then?

I have been extremely unhappy with the way the GOP has been handling fiscal matters. I am equally unhappy with both parties. They have both been irresponsible. But this was not the topic of my post. I specifically pointed out that the democrats overwhelmingly voted for a fiscally irresponsible bill. Do you deny that? You seem to think that the fiscal irresponsibility is one sided. You are wrong.

Brian

 

[Care4all]

It is not government's job... you are a citizen of freedom... with freedom comes the right to succeed and the right to fail... there are positives and negatives to freedom...

Ones like you cannot accept the personal responsibility for yourself... pitiful, truly

you know, i don't usually express many negative responses on message boards but i must say,

just shut up,

you're an ignorant little peon that thinks calling people irresponsible leachers, who you don't EVEN KNOW, is going to "get you somewhere with your hollow argument"...

some are a tad too wise to listen to people like you, who have to resort to trying to put another person down for their point of view....in order to "feel better" about themselves, are just not worth the air that they breathe in my book and probably the book of others too.

I bet i've succeeded, on my own more than you could dream of doing in a lifetime, tyvm, so you can take your garbage and swallow it...

and honestly Dave, it brings nothing to the halfway decent conversation we have had on this thread, thus far....this is about debate isn't it?

Why is it that you assume that the only people in this country working hard for a living and making something of themselves, is you and you alone....and CERTAINLY NOT someone who differs with you and your empty opinion...they must be moochers, they must be on the dole to want health care for all?

Are you really that much of a conceited, arrogant, all about me, me, me, narcicistic bastard off this board too?

I'm not in support of a universal healthcare plan....sheesh....

i am just trying to discuss the subject, constitutionally, and in regards to quality of care in the various different countries with it, and the care that we actually get here in our country, and the double digit increases we have had in health care costs each and every year for the past 10 years...why this is happening and is there anything we can do to get this under control because it will cost us as tax payers with medicare, along with concern for those that are uninsured, and the cost and burden of health care expenses on our businesses and how this may affect them in the global economy we are in....along with the UNAFFORDABILITY for the working family on their own.....

a healthy, strong workforce, makes a stronger economy....that's why many businesses have even taken it up as a benefit, they know this....but it is becoming unaffordable for them and certainly unaffordable for all of us to be paying veterans and military's and all government employee's health care costs with our taxes.

we have a problem and it needs some fixing.

I am opened to review all options including doing nothing.

care

 

[gonegolfin]

i wouldnt call it socialistic. i would call it stupid

No, it is socialistic. Fundamentally, this bill is about bailing out irresponsible borrowers, lenders, and investors. But it is much more than that ...

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are socialistic structures, born out of the FDR era (Freddie Mac came later). These programs have always subsidized housing in this country. That is socialistic. This bill in a sense nationalizes these agencies ... but it is worse than that. The government is providing backstops. But not just to investors of agency debt and agency guaranteed MBSs (which includes significant amounts of foreign central bank and general foreign investment). This would be nationalization. But it is also backstopping investors in the agencies themselves. Maybe the worst part about all of this is that it provides free risk premium to foreign investors (and all investors). That is, yield over and above the rate paid by treasuries with the same risk as treasuries. This is money being sucked from taxpayers.

It is also a bailout of the private mortgage industry. Holders of these MBSs can write them down to 80% of value and sell them to the FHA. This also gives irresponsible borrowers a bailout in the form of a cheaper mortgage ... a loan the free market would not bear. Once again, the taxpayer is on the hook. This is socialism all around (including the financial elite). The entire bill wreaks of moral hazard, privatizing profits, and socializing losses. This is the worst form of socialism.

Brian

 

[Care4all]

No, it is socialistic. Fundamentally, this bill is about bailing out irresponsible borrowers, lenders, and investors. But it is much more than that ...

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are socialistic structures, born out of the FDR era (Freddie Mac came later). These programs have always subsidized housing in this country. That is socialistic. This bill in a sense nationalizes these agencies ... but it is worse than that. The government is providing backstops. But not just to investors of agency debt and agency guaranteed MBSs (which includes significant amounts of foreign central bank and general foreign investment). This would be nationalization. But it is also backstopping investors in the agencies themselves. Maybe the worst part about all of this is that it provides free risk premium to foreign investors (and all investors). That is, yield over and above the rate paid by treasuries with the same risk as treasuries. This is money being sucked from taxpayers.

It is also a bailout of the private mortgage industry. Holders of these MBSs can write them down to 80% of value and sell them to the FHA. This also gives irresponsible borrowers a bailout in the form of a cheaper mortgage ... a loan the free market would not bear. Once again, the taxpayer is on the hook. This is socialism all around (including the financial elite). The entire bill wreaks of moral hazard, privatizing profits, and socializing losses. This is the worst form of socialism.

Brian

how have freddie mac and fannie may SUBSIDIZED housing in this country and what does subsidized mean with them?

care

 

[Zoomie1980]

how have freddie mac and fannie may SUBSIDIZED housing in this country and what does subsidized mean with them?

care

It's yet another wealth redistribution scheme. Remember the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all taxes. These institutions back mortgages with taxpayer dollars. When a mortgage fails the bank comes to one of these agencies for backing and it is payed for with tax dollars and the wealthy pay almost all the taxes in this country so it is a socialistic scheme in that regard.

Ironically it also has a fascist side, too, government being hand in hand with a private business, a lending bank.

 

[sealybobo]

Move out then, lefty

No, I'll stay and help fix the mess they created and you defended.

On another note, more proof the media isnt liberal. Did you hear Republicans walked off the floor today in protest? Of course you didn't. I did, on Air America. Boy, I guess if you really want to know what's happening, you should listen.

It was about Fisa. The gop were mad bush slipped in a signing statement and they weren't informed. More proof of abuse of power. I'll find details tomorrow.

Move. lol. Its my country. I'd rather take it back

 

[sealybobo]

It is not government's job... you are a citizen of freedom... with freedom comes the right to succeed and the right to fail... there are positives and negatives to freedom...

Ones like you cannot accept the personal responsibility for yourself... pitiful, truly

what right wing drivel. this country is great because we have, or had, the greatest government in the world. the right blend of free markets and government services, oversite, etc.

If we were what you propose, we'd have a small upper and middle class and the rest would be poor.

mega corporations would squash all competition.

Your parents wouldn't have sent you to school and definitely not college.

You're almost suggesting survival of the fittest and anything goes.

It doesn't work that way.

If it were, you'd probably be a failure.

 

[Care4all]

It's yet another wealth redistribution scheme. Remember the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all taxes. These institutions back mortgages with taxpayer dollars. When a mortgage fails the bank comes to one of these agencies for backing and it is payed for with tax dollars and the wealthy pay almost all the taxes in this country so it is a socialistic scheme in that regard.

Ironically it also has a fascist side, too, government being hand in hand with a private business, a lending bank.

thank you for explaining zoomie, however I must correct you on one thing, the wealthy do not pay 70% of ALL TAXES but do pay about 70% of our income taxes, which are not even 50% of our budget spent....

you can't say ALL taxes, because they do not pay 7% (about 14% with the company match) of their total income in SS taxes, and they don't pay corporate taxes and the excise taxes, custom duties and gas taxes, and stamp sales, and other taxes collected by the federal government, then if you add in what percentage of property taxes we pay for schools and sales taxes, and state income taxes and fees collected by the gvt for driving and permits and licenses to hunt, and fish and snowmobile etc, and last but most importantly the 100 billion to 300 billion in SS surplus taxes that are spent a year on what the federal general revenue fund/income taxes should be paying...

you can't really say that they pay 70% of ALL TAXES, because they don't...they only pay about 70% of the income taxes collected which i believe was $1.3 or maybe $1.5 trillion a year and we are spending $3 trillion a year....the other taxes collected comes from other things like corp taxes and gas taxes etc to help pay for the their expenditures....

hahahahahahaha! you can tell I am a female....all this chattiness...just to basically say,

i think you are correct on them paying 70% on al income taxes but NOT correct on them paying 70% of ALL taxes.

care

 

[Chris]

It's yet another wealth redistribution scheme. Remember the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all taxes. These institutions back mortgages with taxpayer dollars. When a mortgage fails the bank comes to one of these agencies for backing and it is payed for with tax dollars and the wealthy pay almost all the taxes in this country so it is a socialistic scheme in that regard.

Ironically it also has a fascist side, too, government being hand in hand with a private business, a lending bank.

They need to pay more.

 

[dilloduck]

You're almost suggesting survival of the fittest and anything goes.

It doesn't work that way.

If it were, you'd probably be a failure.

Oh really? Then please explain to me how it works.

 

[Chris]

Taking care of yourself is the right thing to do

People giving VOLUNTARILY to help out those in need is an honorable thing to do

Your personal responsibility for yourself is not my responsibility.. you providing for your well being is nobody's responsibility but your own...

this is not a bee hive... this is real life as a human being in a state based off of the freedom of each and every one of us....

grow up and accept responsibility

A sick person who cannot work, cannot take care of themselves. We can help them. It is the right thing to do.

 

[dilloduck]

A sick person who cannot work, cannot take care of themselves. We can help them. It is the right thing to do.

Yes--we do--not the government.

 

[gonegolfin]

how have freddie mac and fannie may SUBSIDIZED housing in this country and what does subsidized mean with them?

care

Let's factor out the insolvency/failure issue surrounding Freddie and Fannie (as Zoomie points out, the taxpayers are subsidizing via the backstopping of these agencies - keeping them solvent) for a second and focus on why housing is subsidized simply by Fannie and Freddie conducting business.

These agencies subsidize housing in this country because they allow for borrowers to obtain loans at below market rates. Spreads between long term treasuries (essentially no risk lending - in terms of default) and agency MBSs (purchased by investors) have traditionally been about 50 basis points (very small). Such a low spread means a much cheaper mortgage for the borrower. Cheaper than what could be had in a free market without Fannie and Freddie (look at the difference in cost between conventional and non-conventional loans for starters). The spread is so low because these agency MBSs have the implied backing of the federal government. And it has just been proven that this implied backing is actually real backing.

Fannie Mae was a New Deal invention with the purpose of making housing more affordable via making credit cheaper and expanding the number of loans that could be made by serving as liquidity provider. But it was founded as a government agency, not a private corporation. We now now that it still operates as a government agency, but privatizes the profits.

And as I have stated several times, this subsidization is costing the taxpayer because investors of these agency MBSs are getting free risk premium (amounts to about $50 billion/year at present). Borrowers are not getting the full benefit of the subsidization as the risk premium is being paid to investors (many foreign) without them bearing any risk. That is, the borrower does not receive a loan discount (discount to what a loan in the free market would cost) in the full amount of the subsidization (paid for by taxpayers). This should make people angry. This is why I think that the investors of agency debt and agency MBSs should take a haircut. We are giving them a free lunch.

Brian